Eth, Bnb, Trx, Sol - Decentralized?

[satishi]

I have to ask all of you something that I really can't find an answer to... and I really need an answer.

It will sound horrible but I'm taking the worst case.

If I take a GUN, and aim it to Vitalik's head (ETH), or Justin's Head (TRX), or Changpeng (Binance) head, or Anatoly (SOL) head, telling them to shut down their network, that the game is over for them.

Can they do it?

I know that with Bitcoin you can't do it. So please tell me... I'm eager to know the real answer.

[hd49728]

They are centralized projects. You don't have to use violence to test that they are centralized projects.

You will not be able to find a new project in crypto that is decentralized and is launched by an anonymous developer like Satoshi Nakamoto and Bitcoin. You will never have chance to see the same thing in your life.

You see many exchanges call themselves as decentralized exchanges but they are not decentralized. Developers are known, owners are well known, how those exchanges can be decentralized? Will they be able to keep running if owners or core developers are caught by police?

[satishi]

They are centralized projects. You don't have to use violence to test that they are centralized projects.

You will not be able to find a new project in crypto that is decentralized and is launched by an anonymous developer like Satoshi Nakamoto and Bitcoin. You will never have chance to see the same thing in your life.

You see many exchanges call themselves as decentralized exchanges but they are not decentralized. Developers are known, owners are well known, how those exchanges can be decentralized? Will they be able to keep running if owners or core developers are caught by police?

Alright, but I still don't get a clear view on that.
Are you sure that in a touch of a button or a series of actions, once they are threatened or asked by authorities, they can shut down their networks? Causing many people to lose endless amounts of invested dollars?

[SUPERSAIAN]

These exchanges cannot be decentralized in any way. They are so popular today just because of their reputation. Decentralized exchanges are just dex exchanges where you link your own wallet. Trx, bnb style coins are completely centralized. The people who control these central coins are the users in the ecosystem, they are fully interpreted by them. If the opposite happens, there may be a lot of loss, yes, but it is not right for a central structure to control it again.

[blockman]

It's not possible IMHO. It's not only them that decides what to do with their owned centralized blockchains and with just telling it to shut down, for sure there's a process before it's going to happen. The situation that you've given, this can lie to the government and they're the ones that's trying to push them what they should act on when there's a pressure from them and I think it's not going to happen in an instant.

[satishi]

So basically, what all of you are saying is that someone can shut these projects down, even if it involves more people/developers that are getting the order to shut it down, even if it won't be immediate.
are you all sure of that, like 100% sure?
Like I said, there's no where else that I can find that info.

[Dragonfund]

Seems that CZ will shut faster than any other project you have listed over there. Ethereum is fully decentralized in a such a way that it's the community who determines the improvement, vitalik has just a little say on the network.
The ascending order in how they are decentralized will be Eth, Trx, Sol and Bsc, I choosed to make BSC the last option because they have just 21 node that are controlling the. Network, so centralised that they can trace back a transaction a nullify it if it goes against there policy which is pretty bad.

[asriloni]

If I take a GUN, and aim it to Vitalik's head (ETH), or Justin's Head (TRX), or Changpeng (Binance) head, or Anatoly (SOL) head, telling them to shut down their network, that the game is over for them.

Wrong, they are not game over. Did you read how blockchain's working today? if there was no critical problem with it and it can still alive but the problem is if those blockchains didn't run by a lot of nodes. That means when these nodes will be done and blockchain will be stopped.

Can they do it?

They can't do that. The network has been running by so many nodes. It will never stop the blockchain. It can be stopped when there was no node active in the network and that will be shutdown the blockchain.

[Brus123]

I have to ask all of you something that I really can't find an answer to... and I really need an answer.

It will sound horrible but I'm taking the worst case.

If I take a GUN, and aim it to Vitalik's head (ETH), or Justin's Head (TRX), or Changpeng (Binance) head, or Anatoly (SOL) head, telling them to shut down their network, that the game is over for them.

Can they do it?

I know that with Bitcoin you can't do it. So please tell me... I'm eager to know the real answer.

To deem decentralisation you are to check a number of validators or miners. For example, there are only 21 validators in BNB and there are thousands of miners all around the world in Ethereum. So BNB is centralised and this network can be stopped by its head. On the other hand, Ethereum can't be stopped by Vitalik as it is decentralised.

[Fundamentals Of]

I don't think they all can turn off a switch and everything just shuts down. But Tron, Solana, and Binance are not that decentralized. They are not as established as Ethereum in terms of distributing control. Ethereum has thousands of unique nodes all over the world. The majority is in the US followed by Germany and then Canada. So if you aim that gun towards Vitalik's head and actually pull the trigger, Vitalik may die but not Ethereum. Although I think much of the future developments of Ethereum will be lost with him.

[Ten98]

So basically, what all of you are saying is that someone can shut these projects down, even if it involves more people/developers that are getting the order to shut it down, even if it won't be immediate.
are you all sure of that, like 100% sure?
Like I said, there's no where else that I can find that info.

Every project maker always knows where the weakness of his project is and it can be very easy to close it again if the potential for success is very slim or small, because if you can't compete with others, it would be wise to close it instead of having to keep promising everyone the result there will never be

[amishmanish]

Violent as this test maybe, it is pretty much the last proof of the anti-fragility of a blockchain network.

The question though is, does the network of your choice need to be anti-fragile. Would the government/ regulator suddenly deem them illegal (with motivation from incumbents) and would it be possible for them to subpoena entities that could result in the network shutting down.

That could definitely happen in case of any PoS network. Most of these coins are dependent on their backing foundation and corporation so they aren't really money but just software pieces being used by people. Nowhere near decentralization, yet as long as they are atleast permissionless, shouldn't be an issue for the use-cases of DeFi.

People will flock to whatever they want to do and you cannot stop them. Thus their decentralization doesn't really matter. What matters is for Bitcoin to stay true to PoW and decentralization.

[satishi]

Thanks for the valuable information you shared here.

You will not be able to find a new project in crypto that is decentralized and is launched by an anonymous developer like Satoshi Nakamoto and Bitcoin. You will never have chance to see the same thing in your life.

That is some statement. Any opinions on this matter? how can you be so sure? In theory if someone creates a new PoW coin from a public computer, share it online, and disappears. And after some time, everybody mines it, uses it and trade it, so it has the potential to be like Bitcoin. Where am I wrong here?

The ascending order in how they are decentralized will be Eth, Trx, Sol and Bsc, I choosed to make BSC the last option because they have just 21 node that are controlling the. Network, so centralised that they can trace back a transaction a nullify it if it goes against there policy which is pretty bad.

Great info.

[Valak]

I have no doubts about a centralized or decentralized blockchain, but what I do doubt is that there is a maintenance blockchain. If they are blockchain developers, then the parent blockchain suffers maintenance, of course their smart chain suffers as well. Maybe in the past few days have experienced maintenance on a particular blockchain, if you read that, and all token transactions from that blockchain have crashed. However I've never seen that happen on Ethereum, Binance, Tron. Maybe I don't get any information about it. I think those developers of the blockchain are not alone. You only mentioned the main owner. Perhaps simply, if the primary owner dies, will the blockchain still run as smoothly as it is today. Of course yes, because the owner is not necessarily the developer.

[holly.ball8]

From your scenario, I think TRX and BNB are the most likely to be shut down since they are not very decentralized compared to ETH and SOL. This also means even if your scenario seems impossible, it still gives us a thought about which is more centralized, subject to be influenced by their creator.